Allowed

Sushil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Nov 2021CW/13875/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions filed by farmers challenged administrative orders modifying water outlets. The Single Judge held the orders were passed without an opportunity of hearing and without complying with Rule 11(2) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955, and quashed them.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 08.11.2019 & 04.09.2019 quashed; respondents directed to give proper hearing and comply with Rule 11(2) of Rules 1955 before acting.

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17598/2019

¶4

Rajkumar S/o Shri Sukhveer, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Valmiki R/o Ward No. 18, Sadulsahar District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶5

Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Brij Lal,, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Ward No. 6, Sadulsahar District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶6

Rampratap S/o Shri Devi Lal,, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Chak 12 Krw, Khatsajwar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶7

Sultan Ram S/o Shri Ganesha Ram,, Aged About 75 Years, By Caste Jat R/o Ward No. 8, Sadulsahar District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶8

Vinod Khichar S/o Shri Mani Ram,, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Jat R/o Ward No. 2, Sadulsahar District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶9

Sugreev S/o Shri Puran Ram,, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Jat R/o Ward No. 6, Sadulsahar District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶10

Mahendra S/o Mani Ram, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Jat R/o Ward No. 2, Sadulsahar District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶11

Bahadur Singh S/o Amru Ram,, Aged About 80 Years, By Caste Jat R/o Ward No. 6, Sadulsahar District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶12

----Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Water Resources, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶15

The Chief Engineer, Irrigation North, Hanumangarh. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh.

¶16

The Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Division-I, Hanumangarh.

¶17

Mahaveer Prasad Jhinja S/o Shri Ganpat Ram Jhinja, President Water User Association, Bk - 118, Ward No.3,

¶18

(2 of 6)

¶19

[CW-17598/2019]

¶20

Sadulsahar District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

Connected With

¶23

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13875/2019

¶24

Sushil Kumar S/o Shri Kash Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Chak 6 Krw, Tehsil - Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶25

Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Kashi Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Chak 6 Krw, Tehsil - Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶26

Satpal Singh @ Sukhpal Singh S/o Shri Harnek Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Chak 6 Krw, Tehsil - Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶27

Navneet Singh S/o Shri Sukhpal Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Chak 6 Krw, Tehsil - Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶28

Rameshwar S/o Shri Hari Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Chak 6 Krw, Tehsil - Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶29

Prithvi Ram S/o Shri Hari Ram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Chak 6 Krw, Tehsil - Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶30

Gurjinder Singh S/o Shri Deshraj, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Chak 6 Krw, Tehsil - Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶31

Kulshant Singh S/o Shri Deshraj, Aged About 47 Years, R/ o Chak 6 Krw, Tehsil - Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶32

----Petitioners

¶33

Versus

¶34

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Water Resources, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶35

The Chief Engineer, Irrigation North, Hanumangarh.

¶36

The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh Junction.

¶37

The Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Division-I, Hanumangarh.

(3 of 6)

[CW-17598/2019]

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17593/2019

¶42

Mohan Lal S/o Sultan Ram, Aged About 51 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Ward No.8, Sadulsahar District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶43

Inderpal S/o Moman Ram, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Ward No.6, Sadulsahar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶44

Subhash Chandra S/o Chandu Ram, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Chak 13 Krw, Khatsajwar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶45

Tripat Ram S/o Anant Ram, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Ward No.6, Sadulsahar District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶46

Dilip S/o Lichhu Ram, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Ward No.6, Sadulsahar District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶47

Shivprakash S/o Kaluram, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Ward No.6, Sadulsahar District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶48

Narayana Ram S/o Govind Ram, Aged About 95 Years, B/ c Panwar, R/o Chak 13 Krw, Khatsajwar, Tehsil Sadulsahar District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶49

----Petitioners

¶50

Versus

¶51

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Water Resources, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶52

The Chief Engineer, Irrigation North, Hanumangarh.

¶53

The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh.

¶54

The Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Division-I, Hanumangarh.

¶55

Mahaveer Prasad Jhinja S/o Ganpat Ram Jhinja, President Water User Association, Bk - 118, Ward No.3, Sadulsahar District Sriganganagar (Raj.)

----Respondents

(4 of 6)

[CW-17598/2019]

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. BS Sandhu
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat, Addl. GC Mr. BM Aggarwal

¶60

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Order

¶61

25/11/2021

¶62

Ms. Abhilasha Bora, learned Additional Government Counsel fairly submits that the controversy in question is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Krishan Lal & Ors. Vs.

¶63

State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4968/2020) decided on 22.02.2021.

¶64

Learned counsel for the petitioner agreed with the submission made by learned Government Counsel.

¶65

The order dated 22.02.2021 reads as follows:

¶66

“1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

¶67

2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition claiming the following relief:

¶68

“A/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 Annexure P/2 passed by the respondent no.3 along with the P- Form attached to it may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.”

¶69

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing before the changes, in pursuance of the impugned order dated 20.02.2020, are being give effect to. Learned counsel further submits that Rule 11(2) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (for

¶70

(5 of 6)

¶71

[CW-17598/2019]

¶72

short, ‘the Rules of 1955’) requires the respondents to take proper approval from the State Government.

¶73

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Randheer Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9129/2015, decided on 22.11.2016) .

¶74

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that even in the impugned order, it has been observed that the interest of the farmers shall be protected.

¶75

6. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the respondents shall give a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before giving effect to the impugned order dated 20.02.2020.

¶76

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the aforementioned judgment cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that a limited proposition in this case is that the petitioners have to be given a proper opportunity of hearing before giving effect to the impugned order, and also the respondents need to abide by Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955.

¶77

8. It is clear that the proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners, and though the learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out a circular dated 19.08.2011 to contend that no special sanction is required to be taken from the State Government, if the outlet is being modified/changed as a result of modernization process, but the same does not permit the respondents to deviate from the legislative mandate of Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955. 9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and accordingly, the respondents are directed to give a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also deal with the compliance of Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955, before giving effect to the

¶78

(6 of 6)

¶79

[CW-17598/2019]

¶80

impugned order dated 20.02.2020. The stay application as well as all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.”

¶81

In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed, and impugned orders dated 08.11.2019 & 04.09.2019 are quashed and set aside and accordingly, the respondents are directed to give a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also deal with the compliance of Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955.

¶82

The respondents shall pass fresh orders while keeping into consideration the aforequoted judgment.

¶83

Stay petition as well as all pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶84

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶85

170-173-Sudheer/-

Sushil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brij Mohan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sundar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Raman Lal Bhatiya Vs Union of India

Ravindra Vs Heera Singh

Alldeen Khatri Vs the Union of India